Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
September 2003
This report was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‘s Climate
Protection Partnerships Division as part of ENERGY STAR. ENERGY STAR is
a government-backed program that helps businesses protect the environment
through superior energy efficiency. The work was supported by EPA Contract
DW-89-93934401-1 through the U.S. Department of Energy Contract under No.
DE-AC03-76SF00098.
Disclaimer
This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government.
While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States
Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor any of
their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for
the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein
to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The
Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do
not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof or
The Regents of the University of California.
Tables
Table 1. Major brewery products and shipments value, 1997 ............................................ 4
Table 2. 1994 Primary energy consumption and expenditures in malt beverages ............ 10
Table 3. Uses and sources of electricity in the brewery sector, 1994 ............................... 11
Table 4. Estimated percentage energy use for various brewing processes ....................... 12
Table 5. Process-specific energy efficiency measures for the brewing industry .............. 15
Table 6. Cross-cutting and utilities energy efficiency measures for the brewing industry16
Table 8. Specific primary energy savings and estimated paybacks for process specific
efficiency measures ............................................................................................ 46
Table 9. Specific primary energy savings and estimated paybacks for efficiency measures
for utilities ......................................................................................................................... 47
Appendix I. Locations and capacity of large breweries .................................................... 56
Appendix II. Employee tasks for energy efficiency ......................................................... 57
Appendix III: Energy management system assessment for best practices in energy
efficiency............................................................................................................ 58
Appendix IV. Support programs for industrial energy efficiency improvement .............. 60
i
Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Beer production 1980-1999 ......................................................................... 3
Figure 2. U.S. brewers‘ production 1987-1999 .................................................................. 5
Figure 3. Process stages in beer production ........................................................................ 8
Figure 4. Physical primary energy intensities for beer production for selected countries
and companies .................................................................................................... 13
Figure 5. 1998 Energy consumption for German breweries by size ................................. 13
Figure 6. Main elements of a strategic energy management system ................................ 18
ii
Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities for Breweries
An ENERGY STAR® Guide for Energy and Plant Managers
Christina Galitsky, Nathan Martin, Ernst Worrell and Bryan Lehman
Energy Analysis Department
Environmental Energy Technologies Division
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
ABSTRACT
Annually, breweries in the United States spend over $200 million on energy. Energy consumption
is equal to 3 – 8% of the production costs of beer, making energy efficiency improvement an
important way to reduce costs, especially in times of high energy price volatility. After a summary
of the beer making process and energy use, we examine energy efficiency opportunities available
for breweries. We provide specific primary energy savings for each energy efficiency measure
based on case studies that have implemented the measures, as well as references to technical
literature. If available, we have also listed typical payback periods. Our findings suggest that given
available technology, there are still opportunities to reduce energy consumption cost-effectively in
the brewing industry. Brewers value highly the quality, taste and drinkability of their beer.
Brewing companies have and are expected to continue to spend capital on cost-effective energy
conservation measures that meet these quality, taste and drinkability requirements. For individual
plants, further research on the economics of the measures, as well as their applicability to different
brewing practices, is needed to assess implementation of selected technologies.
1
1. Introduction
As U.S. manufacturers face an increasingly competitive global business environment, they seek
opportunities to reduce production costs without negatively affecting product yield or quality.
Uncertain energy prices in today‘s marketplace negatively affect predictable earnings, a concern
for publicly-traded companies in the beer industry. For public and private companies alike,
increasing energy prices are driving up costs and decreasing their value added. Successful, cost-
effective investment into energy efficiency technologies and practices meet the challenge of
maintaining the output of a high quality product despite reduced production costs. This is
especially important, as energy-efficient technologies often include ―additional‖ benefits, such as
increasing the productivity of the company.
1
The concept of the ―triple bottom line‖ was introduced by the World Business Council on Sustainable
Development (WBCSD). The three aspects are interconnected as society depends on the economy and the economy
depends on the global ecosystem, whose health represents the ultimate bottom line.
2
2. The Brewery Market
The U.S. brewery sector (SIC code 2082 or NAICS 312120) is composed of about 500
companies and produces about $20 billion worth of shipments (DOC, 1999). The major product
class is canned beer and ale case goods. Production facilities are distributed throughout the
country. While production processes have mostly remained unchanged, the sector is increasingly
moving to economies of scale. Large establishments with more than 250 employees account for
roughly half of the value added in the sector (DOC, 1999). As of 1998, there were 43 large
breweries that accounted for the majority of production among the country‘s more than 2,000
brewing establishments (see Appendix I) (Real Beer, 2000). The number of breweries is now at
the highest level since prohibition ended in 1933 (Hein, 1998), underlining the dynamic
development in the malt beverages industry.
Brewery products primarily consist of beer (lager and ale). Figure 1 shows the historical
production of beer in the U.S. Production peaked in 1990, in part due to changes in tax
regulations that took effect in 1991, adding an excise tax on brewery products. Annual
production has ranged around 200 million barrels2 for most of the 1990s.
205
200
Million barrels
195
190
185
180
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Note: Data from 1990-1999 reflect calendar rather than fiscal year data.
Source: Beer Institute, 2000. 1999 is an estimate from the Beer Institute.
While U.S. beer production peaked in 1990, the long-term (1980-1999) shows a slightly
declining per capita trend. U.S. Beer consumption per capita in 1999 was 22 gallons, down from
23 in 1980. However, trends vary by state (Hein, 1998). Factors that affect beer consumption are
weather (precipitation, temperature), population growth and distribution, economic development
2
A barrel of beer is 31 gallons or 1.2 hectoliters.
3
and competition with other drinks. Future consumption trends will be affected by competition
with other ethanol drinks (wine, spirits) and non-alcoholic drinks. Of these, wine and soft drinks
show the highest growth in recent years (Hein, 1998).
The production of beer in bottles and cans dominates the market. As Table 1 indicates, canned
beer accounts for half the value of shipments for the industry, with bottled beer accounting for a
third.
Figure 2 identifies production by selected companies between 1987 and 1999. Together,
Anheuser-Busch, Miller and Coors companies account for 83% of total U.S. production. Within
these companies, the largest selling brands are Budweiser (20% share), Bud Light (14%), Miller
Franchise (8%), Coors Light (8%) and Busch (5%). The share of light beer continues to grow
and currently has captured a third of the market. While growth in domestic beer production for
the main brands has been relatively flat, the craft brewing3 segment of the industry has begun to
show stronger growth that should continue, although the base of production is still relatively
small (Edgell Communications, 2000). The top five craft brews accounted for less than 3 million
barrels (2.6 million hl) in 1999. Imports account for about 7% of the current beer market in the
U.S., and continue to grow (Hein, 1998). The main exporters to the U.S. are Mexico, Canada, the
Netherlands, United Kingdom, Germany and Ireland. The U.S. beer industry exports beer mainly
to the Asian market (Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong), the Americas (Brazil, Canada, Mexico) and
Russia. Exports were growing until 1995 when they began decreasing, due to the economic
developments in Asia, Brazil and Russia.
3
Craft brewing is defined here as not more than one-third owned by another large non-craft brewing company of
greater than $50 million revenue.
4
Value-added reflects the value of shipments less the cost of inputs required for producing the
products. Value added in the brewing industry increased at an average of 6.5% per year from
$3.7 billion in 1980 to $11.2 billion in 1998 (DOC, 2000). During the same period, employment
dropped by 1.6% per year from 43,000 to 32,000 employees. This puts the breweries sector
among the top ten industrial sectors in terms of value-added per employee. The decreased
employment in the U.S. brewery sector may suggest an increasing level of mechanization.
120
Anheuser-Busch
Miller
Production (Million barrels)
100
Coors
Stroh
80
Heileman
Pabst
60 Others
40
20
0
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
5
3. Process Description
The brewing process uses malted barley and/or cereals, unmalted grains and/or sugar/corn syrups
(adjuncts), hops, water, and yeast to produce beer. Most brewers in the U.S. use malted barley as
their principal raw material. Depending on the location of the brewery and incoming water
quality, water is usually pre-treated with a reverse osmosis carbon filtration or other type of
filtering system. Figure 3 outlines the main stages of production for U.S. breweries.
The first step of brewing, milling and carbon filtration, takes place when malt grains are
transported from storage facilities and milled in a wet or dry process to ensure that one can
obtain a high yield of extracted substances (UNEP, 1996). Sometimes the milling is preceded by
steam or water conditioning of the grain.
The mixture of milled malt, gelatinized adjunct and water is called mash. The purpose of
mashing is to obtain a high yield of extract (sweet wort) from the malt grist and to ensure product
uniformity. Mashing consists of mixing and heating the mash in the mash tun, and takes place
through infusion, decoction or a combination of the two. During this process, the starchy content
of the mash is hydrolyzed, producing a liquor called sweet wort. In the infusion mashing process,
hot water between 160-180°F (71-82C) is used to increase the efficiency of wort extraction in
the insulated mashing tuns. The mashing temperature is dictated by wort heating using steam
coils or jackets. In decoction mashing, a portion of the mashing mixture is separated from the
mash, heated to boiling and re-entered into the mash tun. This process can be carried out several
times, and the overall temperature of the wort increases with each steeping. Part of this mash is
evaporated. This process requires an estimated 12-13 kBtu/barrel4 for medium-sized breweries
(Hackensellner, 2000). The type of mashing system used depends on a number of factors such as
grist composition, equipment and type of beer desired, although decoction mashing appears to be
the preferred system in North America (Hardwick, 1994). Infusion mashing is less energy
intensive than decoction mashing requiring roughly 8-10 kBtu/barrel of fuel (Hackensellner,
2000).
Following the completion of the mash conversion, the wort is separated from the mash. The most
common system in large breweries is a lauter tun or a mash filter (O‘Rourke, 1999b). A more
traditional system is the use of a combined mash tun/lauter tun, usually termed a mashing kettle
or vessel. In the combined mashing vessel, the wort run off is directed through a series of slotted
plates at the bottom of the tun. The mash floats on top of the wort. This tends to be the slowest
wort separation system although it is the lowest cost in terms of capital outlay (O‘Rourke,
1999b). With the use of the lauter tun, the converted mash is transferred to a lautering vessel
where the mash settles on a false bottom and the wort is extracted. Lautering is a complex
screening procedure that retains the malt residue from mashing on slotted plates or perforated
tubes so that it forms a filtering mass. The wort flows through the filter bed (Hardwick, 1994). In
both the combined mashing vessel and the lauter tun, the grains are also sparged (i.e. sprayed and
mixed) with water to recover any residual extract adhering to the grain bed. The extracted grain,
4
In the U.S., energy use in beer brewing is commonly expressed in kBtu/barrel. To convert from kBtu (higher
heating value, HHV) to MJ multiply by 1.055 MJ/kBtu. To convert from barrels of beer to hectoliter (hl) divide by
0.85 barrel/hl.
6
termed ―spent grain,‖ is most often used as animal feed. In a mash filter, the mash is charged
from the mash mixer. The filter is fitted with fine pore polypropylene sheets that forms a tight
filter bed and allows for very high extract efficiency (in excess of 100% laboratory extract)
(O‘Rourke, 1999b). However, the quality of the filtered wort may be affected through the use of
a mash filter process and may not be applicable for all types of brewing.
The next step, wort boiling, involves the boiling and evaporation of the wort (about a 4-12%
evaporation rate) over a 1 to 1.5 hour period. The boil is a strong rolling boil and is the most
fuel-intensive step of the beer production process. Hackensellner (2000) estimates 44 to 46
kBtu/barrel is used for conventional wort boiling systems in Germany. The boiling sterilizes the
wort, coagulates grain protein, stops enzyme activity, drives off volatile compounds, causes
metal ions, tannin substances and lipids to form insoluble complexes, extracts soluble substances
from hops and cultivates color and flavor. During this stage, hops, which extract bitter resins and
essential oils, can be added. Hops can be fully or partially replaced by hop extracts, which reduce
boiling time and remove the need to extract hops from the boiled wort. If hops are used, they can
be removed after boiling with different filtering devices in a process called hop straining. As
with the spent mashing grains, some breweries sparge the spent hops with water and press to
recover wort. In order to remove the hot break, the boiled wort is clarified through
sedimentation, filtration, centrifugation or whirlpool (being passed through a whirlpool tank).
Whirlpool vessels are most common in the U.S.
After clarification, the cleared hopped wort is cooled. Cooling systems may use air or liquids as a
cooling medium. Atmospheric cooling uses air stripping columns (used by Anheuser-Busch)
while liquid cooling uses plate heat exchangers. Heat exchangers are of two types: single-stage
(chilled water only) or multiple-stage (ambient water and glycol). Wort enters the heat exchanger
at approximately 205 to 210ºF (96-99ºC) and exits cooled to pitching temperature. Pitching
temperatures vary depending on the type of beer being produced. Pitching temperature for lagers
run between 43-59ºF (6-15°C), while pitching temperatures for ales are higher at 54-77ºF (12-
25°C) (Bamforth, 2001). The amount of heat potentially recovered from the wort during cooling
by a multiple stage heat exchanger is 35-36 kBtu/barrel (Hackensellner, 2000). Certain brewers
aerate the wort before cooling to drive off undesirable volatile organic compounds. A secondary
cold clarification step is used in some breweries to settle out trub, an insoluble protein
precipitate, present in the wort obtained during cooling.
Once the wort is cooled, it is oxygenated and blended with yeast on its way to the fermentor.5
The wort is then put in a fermentation vessel. For large breweries, the cylindrical fermentation
vessels can be as large as 4,000-5,000 barrel tanks (Bamforth, 2001). During fermentation, the
yeast metabolizes the fermentable sugars in the wort to produce alcohol and carbon dioxide
(CO2). The process also generates significant heat that must be dissipated in order to avoid
damaging the yeast. Fermenters are cooled by coils or cooling jackets. In a closed fermenter,
CO2 can be recovered and later reused. Fermentation time will vary from a few days for ales to
closer to 10 days for lagers (Bamforth, 2001). The rate is dependent on the yeast strain,
fermentation parameters (like the reduction of unwanted diacetyl levels) and taste profile that the
brewer is targeting (Bamforth, 2001; Anheuser Busch, 2001).
5
Oxygen is essential to the development of yeast cell plasma membranes.
7
Figure 3. Process stages in beer production
Grist Preparation
Milling
Brewhouse
Mashing
Lauter tun
Wort boiling
Hop filter
Wort filter
Wort cooling
Fermenter
Fermentation
Carbonation
Pasteurization
At the conclusion of the first fermentation process, yeast is removed by means of an oscillating
sieve, suction, a conical collector, settling or centrifugation. Some of the yeast is reused while
other yeast is discarded. Some brewers also wash their yeast. Some brewing methods require a
second fermentation, sometimes in an aging tank, where sugar or fresh, yeasted wort is added to
start the second fermentation. The carbon dioxide produced in this stage dissolves in the beer,
requiring less carbonation during the carbonation process. Carbonation takes place in the first
fermentation also. Yeast is once again removed with either settling or centrifugation.
Beer aging or conditioning is the final step in producing beer. The beer is cooled and stored in
order to settle yeast and other precipitates and to allow the beer to mature and stabilize. For beers
with a high yeast cell count, a centrifuge may be necessary for pre-clarification and removal of
8
protein and tannin material (UNEP, 1996). Different brewers age their beer at different
temperatures, partially dependent on the desired taste profile. According to Bamforth (1996),
ideally, the beer at this stage is cooled to approximately 30ºF (-1°C), although this varies in
practice from 30F to 50F (-1C to 10C) (Anheuser Busch, 2001). Beer is held at conditioning
temperature for several days to over a month and then chill proofed and filtered. A kieselguhr
(diatomaceous earth) filter is typically used to remove any remaining yeast. Brewers use
stabilizing agents for chill proofing. Coloring, hop extracts and flavor additives are dosed into
the beer at some breweries. The beer‘s CO2 content can also be trimmed with CO2 that was
collected during fermentation. The beer is then sent to a bright (i.e. filtered) beer tank before
packaging. In high gravity brewing (see also discussion in efficiency measures section), specially
treated water would be added during the conditioning stage. This can be a significant volume, as
high as 50% (Anheuser Busch, 2001).
Finally, the beer must be cleaned of all remaining harmful bacteria before bottling. One method
to achieve this, especially for beer that is expected to have a long shelf life, is pasteurization,
where the beer is heated to 140°F (60°C) to destroy all biological contaminants. Different
pasteurization techniques are tunnel or flash pasteurization. Energy requirements for
pasteurization can vary from 19-23 kWh per 1000 bottles for tunnel pasteurization systems
(Hackensellner, 2000). Other estimates are 14-20 kBtu/barrel (Anheuser Busch, 2001). An
alternative approach is the use of sterile filtration (Bamforth, 2001). However, this technology is
new, and some believe these systems may require as much extra energy as they save (Todd,
2001).
A large amount of water is used for cleaning operations. Incoming water to a brewery can range
from 4 to 16 barrels of water per barrel of beer, while wastewater is usually 1.3 to 2 barrels less
than water use per barrel of beer (UNEP, 1996). The wastewater contains biological
contaminants (0.7-2.1 kg of BOD/barrel).6 The main solid wastes are spent grains, yeast, spent
hops and diatomaceous earth. Spent grains are estimated to account for about 16 kg/barrel of
wort (36 lbs/barrel), while spent yeast is an additional 2-5 kg/barrel of beer (5-10 lbs/barrel)
(UNEP, 1996). These waste products primarily go to animal feed. Carbon dioxide and heat are
also given off as waste products.
6
BOD or Biological Oxygen Demand reflects a measure of the concentration of organic material. BOD, unless otherwise
indicated, is measured for a five day period (UNEP, 1996)
9
4. Energy Use
Natural gas and coal account for about 60% the total primary energy consumed by the malt
beverages industry. These fuels are primarily used as inputs to boilers to produce steam for
various processes and to generate onsite electricity (see Table 2). Other uses include direct
process uses, such as process heating, cooling, refrigeration and machine drive, and direct non-
process uses such as facility heating. Net electricity consumption, including generation losses,
was 36% of primary energy requirements (see Table 2).
Total energy expenditures for malt beverages in 1994 were $221 million, with electricity
accounting for 56% of expenditures, even though net electric energy consumption, including
losses, is 36% (EIA, 1997). 1998 data from the Annual Survey of Manufactures shows that
expenditures remained relatively constant at $210 million—even though output increased—with
electricity‘s share at 58% (DOC, 2000). Although overall energy expenditure data exist for more
recent years, 1994 is the last year when detailed energy consumption and energy expenditure
statistics were published for the breweries sector by the Energy Information Administration
(EIA, 1997 and 2001). In the United Kingdom, energy expenditures account for roughly 3-8% of
total production costs (Sorrell, 2000; McDonald, 1996). Anheuser-Busch suggests that energy
expenditures account for about 8.5% (Anheuser-Busch, 2001). The largest production costs are
packaging materials, raw production materials (grains) and malt (Sorrell, 2000).
The relative importance of electricity costs, in addition to the high steam demand in the sector,
prompted investment into the generation of onsite electricity at various manufacturing facilities.
7
To convert from TBtu (higher heating value, HHV) to TJ multiply by 1.055*10 -9 TJ/TBtu.
8
Final energy is the purchased energy by the final user (or plant). Primary energy is calculated using the average
efficiency for public power generation to estimate the fuels used to generate the power consumed by the brewing
industry. We use an average efficiency of 32% based on U.S. consumption of fuels at power plants. Hence, primary
energy is roughly three times final energy.
10
Cogenerated electricity (the production of both heat and power, also called combined heat and
power or CHP) in 1994 was 644 million kWh (EIA, 1997). Accounting for all of the electricity
uses (net demand), cogenerated electricity accounts for 22% of the total electricity used onsite9.
This share of cogenerated electricity is relatively high compared to other industries in the U.S.
The largest uses of electricity are in machine drives for the use of pumps, compressed air,
brewery equipment, and process cooling (see Table 3).
Table 4 identifies energy use for specific brewery processes based on surveys conducted by the
Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU) in the United Kingdom for a kegging brewery (Sorrell,
2000). As the table indicates, the vast majority of thermal energy is used in brewing operations
and pasteurization, while electricity consumption is more evenly divided among fermentation,
beer conditioning and space and utilities. Anheuser-Busch estimates that 64% of thermal energy
is used in brewing (Meyer, 2001).
9
Net demand accounts for the total uses of electricity onsite and reflects the fact that some of the purchased fuels are used to
produce electricity for internal consumption. In 1994, net electricity use (purchases) was 8 TBtu (2,311 Million kWh) while net
demand was 10 TBtu (2,975 Million kWh).
11
Table 4. Estimated percentage energy use for various brewing processes
Thermal Energy Brewhouse 30-60%
Packaging 20-30%
Space heating <10%
Utilities 15-20%
Electrical Energy Refrigeration 30-40%
Packaging 15-35%
Compressed air 10%
Brewhouse 5-10%
Boiler house 5%
Lighting 6%
Other 10-30%
Source: Sorrell, 2000
As Figure 4 indicates, there is a wide range of unit energy consumption for the various countries.
U.S. national data is based on 1991 and 1994 Energy Information Administration energy data
and output data provided by the Beer Institute (EIA, 1994 and 1997; Beer Institute, 2000).
(Brewery energy consumption was not reported in the most recent EIA energy survey for 1998.)
In addition to U.S. national data, we included a time series for Anheuser-Busch data (Anheuser-
Busch, 2001) and for Coors data (Coors, 2001), which combined produce over 60% of the beer
in the U.S.
The variation in intensities is partly influenced by the type of product being produced. In the
United Kingdom for example, almost 80% of beer produced is draught beer that has much lower
energy requirements than other types of beer since it is not pasteurized (Lom and Associates,
1998). Intensities will also vary depending on the size of the brewery. Figure 5 depicts the range
of specific energy consumption (in kBtu/barrel) for German breweries of various sizes. Class V
contains the largest breweries (greater than 500,000 hectoliters (hl) annual production) and has
the lowest specific energy consumption.
12
Figure 4. Physical primary energy intensities for beer production for selected countries and
companies (kBtu/barrel)
500
Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) Canada
[Kbtu/barrel] 450 Asahi (Japan)
U.S.
400
Anheuser-Busch (US)
Germany
300
Austria
92
94
96
98
00
19
19
19
19
19
20
Note: Primary intensity reflects the accounting of transmission and distribution losses in electricity use. We use a
factor of 3.08 to convert final electricity consumption to primary electricity consumption.
Sources: U.S. (EIA, 1997; Beer Institute, 2000), 1998 brewery energy consumption was not reported for 1998 (EIA,
2001); Coors (U.S.) (Coors, 2001); Anheuser-Busch (Anheuser-Busch, 2001); Canada (Lom and Associates, 1998;
Nyboer and Laurin, 2001); Austria (EC, 1998; Bkontakt, 2000); Asahi in Japan (Asahi Breweries, 2000); U.K.
(Sorrell, 2000); Germany (Hackensellner, 2000)
600
Energy Intensity
500
Kbtu/barrel
400 Losses
300 Electricity
Fuel
200
100
0
Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V All
(0-20k) (20-50k) (50-100k) (100-500k) (>500k)
Size (hL)
Source:
Schu et al., 2001
13
5. Options for Energy Efficiency
If a company operates several breweries, energy management can be more complex than just
considering the needs of a single plant. Whether for a single plant or an entire corporation,
establishing a strong organizational energy management framework is important to ensure that
energy efficiency measures are implemented effectively.
Table 5 lists energy efficiency measures that have been identified as process-specific to mashing,
wort boiling and cooling, fermentation, processing and packaging. Table 6 lists measures that are
cross-cutting, i.e. they affect many operations, or that concern utilities, such as the production of
steam or electricity or cooling. The payback period estimates are based on the implementation of
individual technologies. Combining several technologies in a single project or changing
management practices may reduce the costs and hence improve the productivity of an
investment.
14
Table 5. Process-specific energy efficiency measures for the brewing industry
Typical payback
periods
1-3 years > 3 years
Mashing and Lauter Tun
Capture of waste heat energy
Use of compression filter (mashing)
Wort boiling and cooling
Vapor condensers
Thermal vapor recompression1
Mechanical vapor recompression
Steinecker Merlin system
High gravity brewing
Low pressure wort boiling
Wort stripping
Wort cooling-additional heat recovery2
Fermentation
Immobilized yeast fermenter
Heat recovery3
New CO2 recovery systems4
Processing
Microfiltration for clarification or sterilization
Membranes for production of alcohol-free beer
Heat recovery-pasteurization5
Flash pasteurization
Packaging
Heat recovery washing
Cleaning efficiency improvements
Notes:
1. Payback period may be longer; 2. Payback period depends on systems used currently and could be shorter; 3.
Payback period depends on makeup/exhaust airflow, weather conditions and electricity rates; 4. Small water pump
size and low cost of purchased CO2 would create a longer payback period; 5. Payback periods based on a retrofit
(Anheuser-Busch, 2001).
15
Table 6. Cross-cutting and utilities energy efficiency measures for the brewing industry
Typical payback
periods
Measure <2 years >2 years
Boilers and Steam distribution
Maintenance
Improved process control1
Flue gas heat recovery
Blowdown steam recovery
Steam trap maintenance
Automatic steam trap monitoring
Leak repair
Condensate return2
Improved insulation of steam pipes3
Process integration
Motors and Systems that Use Motors
Variable speed drives4
Downsizing of motors, pumps, compressors2
High efficiency motors, pumps, compressors2
Refrigeration and cooling
Better matching of cooling capacity and cooling loads
Improved operation of ammonia cooling system
Improve operations and maintenance
System modifications and improved design
Insulation of cooling lines5
Other utilities
Lighting
Reduce space heating demand
Anaerobic waste water treatment2
Membrane filtration wastewater
Control and monitoring systems2
Combined heat and power
CHP combined with absorption cooling
Engine-driven chiller systems
Notes:
1. Payback period depends on tuning conditions of existing systems; 2. Payback periods may be longer; 3. Payback
periods depend on existing conditions; 4. Savings depend on how often the motor is run at less than full speed; 5.
Payback period varies depending on purging of the system before and how careful the operators performed
pumpouts (Anheuser-Busch, 2001).
The values presented in the following review provide an average estimate or a set of specific data
points; only a detailed study of a specific location can produce reliable estimates for that plant.
Actual energy savings will likely vary by plant size and operation characteristics. Throughout
our review, where possible, we provide an estimate of the range of savings found under varying
conditions. We acknowledge that for some measures, particularly new technologies, there may
not be sufficient information (e.g. a larger set of experiences) to estimate average industry
savings and payback. For these, we have provided the information that was available. We also
acknowledge that payback periods vary from country to country and from brewery to brewery
and that a measure may have been adopted by some individual breweries but not all of them. In
16
addition, for those measures only reducing electricity or gas consumption, payback periods will
vary with utility rates. To account for these differences in payback periods, we sought comments
from U.S. brewers, adapted the data to U.S. conditions where feasible and adjusted our ranges to
incorporate their experiences.
Although technological changes in equipment can help to reduce energy use, changes in staff
behavior and attitude also can have a great impact. Staff should be trained in both skills and the
company‘s general approach to energy efficiency for use in their day-to-day practices. Personnel
at all levels should be aware of energy use and objectives for energy efficiency improvement.
Often this information is acquired by lower level managers but not passed to upper management
or to other staff (Caffal, 1995). Programs with regular feedback on staff behavior, such as reward
systems, have had good results. Though changes in staff behavior, such as switching off lights or
closing windows and doors, save only small amounts of energy at a time, when taken
continuously over longer periods, they may have a much greater effect than more costly
technological improvements. Most importantly, companies need to institute strong energy
management programs that oversee energy efficiency improvement across the corporation. An
energy management program will ensure all employees actively contribute to energy efficiency
improvements.
Participation in voluntary programs like the EPA ENERGY STAR program, or implementing an
environmental management system such as ISO 14001 can help companies track energy and
implement energy efficiency measures. One ENERGY STAR partner noted that combining the
energy management program with the ISO 14001 program had a large effect on saving energy at
their plants.
An energy management program creates a foundation for improvement and provides guidance
for managing energy throughout an organization. In companies without a clear program in place,
opportunities for improvement may be unknown or may not be promoted or implemented
because of organizational barriers. These barriers may include a lack of communication among
plants, a poor understanding of how to create support for an energy efficiency project, limited
finances, poor accountability for measures or perceived change from the status quo. Even when
energy is a significant cost for an industry, many companies still lack a strong commitment to
improve energy management.
EPA, through ENERGY STAR, has worked with many of the leading industrial manufacturers to
identify the basic aspects of an effective energy management program. 10 The major elements are
depicted in Figure 6.
10
See Guidelines for Energy Management at www.energystar.gov.
17
Figure 6. Main elements of a strategic energy management system
Performance goals help to shape the development and implementation of an action plan. An important
aspect for ensuring the successes of the action plan is involving personnel throughout the organization.
18
Personnel at all levels should be aware of energy use and goals for efficiency. Staff should be trained in
both skills and general approaches to energy efficiency in day-to-day practices. In addition, performance
results should be regularly evaluated and communicated to all personnel, recognizing high performers.
Some examples of simple employee tasks are outlined in Appendix II.
Evaluating performance involves the regular review of both energy use data and the activities carried out
as part of the action plan. Information gathered during the formal review process helps in setting new
performance goals and action plans and in revealing best practices. Establishing a strong communications
program and seeking recognition for accomplishments are also critical steps. Strong communication and
recognition help to build support and momentum for future activities.
A quick assessment of an organization‘s efforts to manage energy can be made by comparing the current
program against the table contained in Appendix II.
Support for a business energy management program can come from outside sources as well. Some
utility companies work with industrial clients to achieve energy savings. In these cases, utility
personnel work directly with managers onsite to better identify and implement programs and
measures that are more effective for the particular situation of the facility.
19
6. Process-Specific Measures
Table 5 lists the process specific measures that we have identified for the beer brewing industry
along with their typical payback periods. Below, we describe each of the measures in more
detail.
In 1991, a Grolsch brewery (the Netherlands) installed a waste heat recovery system in its
continuous wort boiling operations. Overall energy savings were 35 billion Btu. The system also
reduced water, maintenance and operation costs. The payback period for the energy savings
20
alone was 3.5 years, however, if water and operation and maintenance costs are included, the
payback period was 2 years (NOVEM, 1991a). In a related technology, the Bavaria brewery in
Lieshout (the Netherlands) installed a system in which the wort vapor is mixed with the steam
from the heating coils. The mixture is fed to a condenser and the condensation heat is used to
heat a water circuit, which provides heat to the wort pre-heaters as well as to several other
departments like filtering and bottling divisions. Net savings from the system are 1,144,000
m3/year natural gas equivalent (i.e. natural gas savings of 1,171,700 m3 but an increased
electricity use of 72,000 kWh/year). This translates into a net savings 22 kBtu/barrel (0.02
GJ/hl). The project had a payback period of 5.5 years (CADDET, 1993a; NOVEM, 1993a). A
Japanese brewery that installed wort pan condensers to recover condensate as hot water was able
to reduce significantly annual steam use. Steam savings resulted from shortening the wort
heating time by preheating the incoming wort (900 tons), reducing the steam input into the wort
pan container hot water tank steam inline heater (670 tons), and by reducing mixing time.
Savings were estimated to be 1.3% of steam consumption (UNIDO, 1995). Heat recovery from
kettle and wort boiling and wort cooling in the New Belgium Brewing Company (Colorado)
generates enough hot water for all brewing and some cleaning requirements (Farrell, 1998;
Heyse et al, 1996; and UNIDO, 2000).
21
Wort boiling using mechanical vapor recompression
Vapor recompression is an established technology to reduce energy costs for evaporation. In a
vapor recompression system, the wort is boiled to 216ºF (102°C) externally using compressed
vapors up to 1.25 bar. The wort expands in the kettle at 212ºF (100°C). Vapor condensate is
collected in the condensate tank and the heat (used to preheat water) is recovered through a plate
heat exchanger (UNIDO, 2000). Mechanical vapor recompression (MVR) systems have been
used in breweries since 1980 and can achieve energy savings because the generated useful heat
contains more energy than the electricity required to compress the steam (Hackensellner, 2000;
Kidger, 2001). MVR systems work best when operating constantly for long periods (Sorrell,
2000). Manufacturers claim MVR systems reduce the aroma emissions almost entirely, provide a
gentle boiling process by lowering the pressure of the compressed vapor and in many cases,
significantly reduce or eliminate other steam requirements (Steineker, 2001).
In MVR, the evaporator components are similar to steam-powered machinery with the addition
of a mechanical compressor. Mechanical energy supplied via a compressor or fan compresses the
vapor to a higher pressure where it may be reused. Vapor from the wort kettle is drawn in by a
compressor and compressed by 0.25-0.4 bar above atmospheric pressure. The compressed vapor
can be reused for heating an external or internal boiler (Hackensellner, 2000). Steineker notes a
reduction in evaporation requirements from 9.9% for conventional boiling to 8.7% for MVR, and
estimates fuel consumption as low as 14 kBtu/barrel (Steineker, 2001; Weinzierl et al., 2000).
However, MVR systems will have increased electricity requirements to run the compressor and
circulating wort pump. Electricity consumption is estimated to range from 0.3 to 2.8 kWh/barrel
(0.1 to 0.7 kWh/hl) evaporate (Hackensellner, 2000; Weinzierl et al., 2000). One of the main
operating challenges is to maintain an air-free system for wort boiling. This evaporator is
generally more costly than thermal vapor recompression, but operating costs are significantly
less. Estimates for operating costs are around 2-7% of the investment costs (Hackensellner,
2000).
22
When an energy storage unit is added to the Merlin system, fuel use drops further to 12.3
kBtu/barrel, for a total savings of 23.7 kBtu/barrel. In all cases, electricity use increases to 0.02
kWh/barrel (Stippler and Felgentraeger, 1999; Weinzierl et al., 2000). As of last year, there were
at least four operating Merlin plants worldwide and more expected to be built. Depending on
energy prices, paybacks for the installation of a system can be as low as 2 years (Finkeldey,
2001).
23
clarification and before wort cooling, the wort is sent to a wort stripping column. In counterflow
with the falling wort, live steam is injected at a flow rate of 0.5-2.0% of the wort flow rate. The
steam flows up the column, condenses and leaves after having collected the same level of wort
volatiles that are evaporated with conventional boiling (Seldeslachts, 1999; Anonymous, 1998;
Meura, 2000). Total evaporation of the wort is generally kept below 2% of the total wort volume
(Seldeslachts, 1999). Cooking time of the wort is reduced from 65 to 40 minutes with no changes
in color, foam stability or flavor (Jacob et al., 2001). Dimethyl sulfate (DMS) and other
unwanted compounds are controlled and stripped in order to reduce them to desired levels
(Seldeslachts, 1999). Energy savings come from significant reductions in evaporation
requirements and not having to heat up the wort to as high a temperature (Seldeslachts, 1999).
Data from trials at Interbrew showed a reduction in energy consumption of 42 kBtu/barrel (92
kBtu/barrel to 50 kBtu/barrel) for conventional mashing and wort boiling, equivalent to a
reduction of 46% (Seldeslachts, 1999). Other studies have demonstrated fuel consumption of 31-
42 kBtu/barrel for wort boiling, equivalent to fuel savings of 30-40% for wort boiling in the
brewhouse compared to conventional technology (Jacob et al., 2001; Seldeslachts et al., 1997).
6.3 Fermentation
Immobilized yeast fermenter for accelerating fermentation
Pilot plants for continuous fermentation were developed in the 1970s. However, this process was
not widely adopted by brewers except for one brewery in New Zealand, as the systems did not
perform up to flavor specifications (Stewart and Russell, 1998). Since that time, further
developments in this technology have made it a more attractive option (Nedovic et al., 1999).
Immobilized cell systems are those physically confined to a certain defined region of space with
retention of their catalytic activity and viability. The most widespread technique is entrapment
within a matrix (Stewart and Russell, 1998). Meura-Delta (Belgium) has recently developed a
new bioreactor process that they claim has the capacity to accelerate the fermentation process
from 5-7 days to one day. The reactor works by having the yeast immobilized on a ceramic
carrier that increases the contact between the wort and the yeast, thereby increasing the
fermentation reaction speed. The Finnish national research council developed a system where
green beer is passed through an immobilized yeast reactor reducing maturation time from 10-14
24
days to two to three hours (Stewart, 2000). The technology has also been piloted in Japan, where
they found a two to three day fermenting time (Stewart and Russell, 1998). These systems can
have lower capital costs than existing fermenting systems (Stewart and Russell, 1998). The
system can yield material savings through the reuse of yeast, and reductions of kieselguhr
required for later filtration (Nedovic et al., 1999). Additionally, the process quality control is
improved (Masschelein and Andries, 1996; Meura, 2000).
Heat recovery
In 1999, Moosehead breweries announced that they intended to install a heat recovery wheel in
cellars to reduce refrigeration losses when CO2 exhaust fans are automatically engaged at high
CO2 levels (Moosehead, 1999). Based on the use of other applications of heat wheel technology,
we estimate a payback of roughly 2-3 years (CADDET, 1996a; CADDET, 1998).
25
One system, crossflow microfiltration, uses a membrane in conjunction with a high velocity
tangential process stream flow in a narrow channel above the membrane. Filtrate is driven by
applied pressure through the membrane. This technology has not yet been widely accepted due to
concerns about fouling, the quality of the product and filtrate flux (O‘Shaugbnessy and
McKechnie, 2000; Osmonics, 1992). It has potential applications in mash separation, beer
clarification, tank bottoms recovery, and in flash pasteurization or membrane cartridge filtration
(O‘Shaugbnessy and McKechnie, 2000). The most promising applications are in the bottom
filtration of tanks, rough beer clarification, and cold-sterilization of clarified beer, yet they are
not yet economically viable (Fillaudeau, 1999). Investigations into the use of oscillatory flow in
crossflow microfiltration for beer clarification found energy savings ranging from 15-40% as
compared to standard microfiltration due to reduced pumping requirements (Blanpain-Avet et al,
1998). The installation of improved yeast collection systems such as microfiltration can
ultimately reduce energy requirements for wastewater treatment later in the process. However,
we have found that paybacks of 2-4 years are possible with the use of membrane technologies in
other food processing applications, even though we do not have specific data on the cost-
effectiveness in breweries (Martin et al., 2000a). Still, some manufacturers believe current cross
flow membrane filtration systems may require as much extra energy as they save (Todd, 2001).
Costs play an important factor in the selection of a system. Alcohol separation processes require
an additional process step (as opposed to manipulated fermentation) and are done to improve
taste. Estimates of utilities costs (energy and water) for RO membranes were estimated to cost
$2.40/barrel ($2.04/hl) as compared to $4.10/barrel ($3.49/hl) for dialysis, while maintenance
costs for RO systems are slightly lower than dialysis ($0.6/barrel as compared to $0.75/barrel)
(Stein, 1993).
26
Heat recovery in pasteurization
While all modern pasteurizers use some form of internal heat regeneration, the heat contained in
the rejected water can be recovered using heat pumps or heat exchangers (Sorrell, 2000). The
operation of the heat pumps can be matched to the heating and cooling requirements of the bottle
washer. A brewery in Canada was able to recover 0.6 kBtu/barrel from its pasteurization process
(Singleton, 2000).
Burnett and Rolfe (2001), which constructs a majority of the brewing industry‘s in-line kegging
systems, has noted that in-line kegging has advanced and resulted in the use of less energy. Older
plants used a steam purge to remove washes two and three. In newer systems, the steam air
purging has replaced steam purging for wash 2, thereby resulting in a reduction of steam
consumption of 50% from 0.8 kg steam/keg to 0.4 kg steam/keg. Additionally, the 3 rd wash
water is reused as the first wash medium, and prior to its use, the water is passed through a heat
exchanger, where heat is captured to pre-heat incoming wash water. Burnett and Rolfe (2001)
estimate the heat exchanger reduces steam consumption by 0.88 to 1.46 kg/keg processed.
Additionally, water consumption is reduced from 20 liters/keg to 12 liters/keg (Burnett & Rolfe,
27
2001). This equates to energy savings of roughly 6 kBtu/barrel and a payback of 3 years or less
(Burnett & Rolfe, 2001).
28
7. Cross-cutting Measures
Utilities are vital in enabling the operation of the production process for breweries (Benson et al.,
1997). Specifically, they provide fuel and electricity for heating, steam, refrigeration, lighting,
motors, pumps, compressors, fans and conveyor systems. Cross-cutting utility energy efficiency
measures that do not interfere with the brewing process may have immediate potential for cost-
effective energy savings. Below we discuss cross-cutting energy efficiency improvement
measures that can reduce energy consumption in hot water and steam distribution, hot water and
steam generation, motors and motor systems, refrigeration and cooling and other utilities such as
lighting. Savings of individual measures can be relatively small; however, the cumulative effect
of these measures can potentially be large.
29
(Lom and Associates, 1998). Miller‘s Milwaukee, Wisconsin plant was able to increase heat
recovery from the flue gas by installing an economizer and reduced energy use by 1.0 kBtu/barrel
(Miller Brewing Co., 2000).
Leak repair
As with steam traps, the distribution pipes themselves often have leaks that go unnoticed without a
program of regular inspection and maintenance. In addition to saving 3% of energy costs, having
such a program can reduce the likelihood of having to repair major leaks (OIT, 1998; Martin et al.,
2000a). Even a small leak that emits a weak hissing sound and hardly a visible cloud of steam can
result in a loss of 1 kg of steam per hour, or energy requirements comparable to producing 200 hl
(170 barrels) of beer (UNEP, 1996).
Condensate return
Reusing the hot condensate in the boiler saves energy and reduces the need for treated boiler feed
11
Based on the following assumptions: 10% of boiler water is blown down (OIT, 1998) and 13% of the energy can be recovered
from this (Johnston, 1995).
30
water. Usually fresh water must be treated to remove solids that might accumulate in the boiler,
and returning condensate can substantially reduce the amount of purchased chemical required to
accomplish this treatment. A good target for condensate return in breweries is at least 75%
(Kidger, 2001). The fact that this measure can save substantial energy costs and purchased
chemicals costs makes building a return piping system attractive. In some cases it may be more
effective to install steam powered condensate return pumps (instead of electric) at the brewery
(Lom and Associates, 1998). We assume a 10% energy savings (OIT, 1998). For condensate that is
unfit to recirculate it is still possible to recover thermal energy using heat exchangers, as is being
done at Moosehead‘s brewery (Canada) (CIPEC, 1998).
Developed in the early 1970's process integration is now an established methodology for
continuous processes (Linnhoff, 1992; CADDET, 1993c). The methodology involves the linking
of hot and cold streams in a process in the thermodynamic optimal way (i.e. not over the so-
called ‗pinch‘). Process integration is the art of ensuring that the components are well suited and
matched in terms of size, function and capability. Pinch analysis takes a systematic approach to
identifying and correcting the performance limiting constraint (or pinch) in any manufacturing
process (Kumana, 2000a). It was developed originally in the late 1970s at the University of
Manchester in England and other places (Linnhoff, 1993) in response to the energy crisis of the
1970s, and the need to reduce steam and fuel consumption in oil refineries and chemical plants
by optimizing the design of heat exchanger networks. Since then, the pinch approach has been
extended to resource conservation in general, whether the resource is capital, time, labor,
electrical power, water or a specific chemical compound, such as hydrogen.
The critical innovation in applying pinch analysis was the development of ―composite curves‖
for heating and cooling, which represent the overall thermal energy demand and availability
profiles for the process as a whole. When these two curves are drawn on a temperature-enthalpy
graph, they reveal the location of the process pinch (the point of closest temperature approach),
and the minimum thermodynamic heating and cooling requirements. These are called the energy
targets. The methodology involves first identifying the targets, and then following a systematic
procedure for designing heat exchanger networks to achieve these targets. The optimum
approach temperature at the pinch is determined by balancing the capital-energy tradeoffs to
31
achieve the desired payback. The procedure applies equally well to new designs as well as
retrofit of existing plants.
The analytical approach to this analysis has been well documented in the literature (Kumana,
2000b; Smith, 1995; Shenoy, 1994). Energy savings potential using pinch analysis far exceeds
that from well-known conventional techniques such as heat recovery from boiler flue gas,
insulation and steam trap management. Kumana (2000b) has reviewed pinch analyses in almost
60 U.S. plants and found cost savings potentials varying between 3 and 50%, and payback
periods ranging from 0.6 to 4.7 years.
A process energy analysis of the Valaisanne brewery (Switzerland) using pinch analysis
techniques achieved a primary energy savings of 25% (Helbing, 2000). Ontario Hydro (Canada)
noted that the use of pinch technology to reduce the refrigeration load in a brewery was able to
cut peak load by 35%, saving nearly $600,000 annually (Singleton, 2000). A detailed model of
four brewhouses in an industrial brewery identified significant opportunities to downsize
equipment and reduce steam consumption peaks with a potential peak reduction of 20%
(Mignon, 1995).
A brewery in Romford (UK) installed an electronic variable speed drive on a circulating pump in
their secondary refrigeration circuit. The VSD was installed to regulate the supply of refrigerant
to match demand. A dramatic reduction in average motor power of approximately 45% was
achieved by introduction of the VSD (CADDET, 1993a). The project had a payback of less than
two years (CADDET, 1993a). The Suntory brewery in Musashino (Japan) installed variable
speed drives on five motors. They were able to reduce electricity use of these motors between
32
32-65%, with payback periods of less than 2 years (CADDET, 1992). Total annual savings for
the plant were 709,000 kWh (CADDET, 1992).
The U.S. Department of Energy (2001) notes that leaks can sometimes waste 20-30% of a
compressor‘s output. Lom and Associates (1998) note several basic housekeeping and
maintenance approaches to reduce compressed air loads, hence leading to reducing the size of
compressors. These measures include the use of leak detectors, maintaining appropriate
pressures that are not too high, enclosing compressors, using intake air from the coolest location
and minimizing the air dryer regeneration cycle. Paybacks for this can be less than a year (Lom
and Associates, 1998). A leak reduction project by Ford Monroe (U.S.) resulted in a 50%
reduction in compressed air use from 17 million cubic feet (mcf) per day to 9 mcf/day and a
$2,000/day savings (U.S. DOE, 2001). The City of Milford (U.S.) decided to replace one 75-hp
pump with a 35-hp pump. Since the smaller pump generates less flow, the pump has to run more
often; however, since the average flow velocity is reduced, the system experiences less friction
loss, increasing the average efficiency. The energy and maintenance savings from the new pump
configuration provided a 1.7-year payback (U.S. DOE, 2001).
33
condensing temperature and pressure of the refrigerant. This reduces the power input while
increasing the refrigeration output. For the evaporator, an increase in temperature and pressure
increases the power input of the compressor, but can dramatically increase the refrigeration
output of the system. Increasing evaporator temperature by one degree can reduce electricity
consumption of the compressor by roughly 3% (Hackensellner, 2001; Lom & Associates, 1998).
In addition, wet cooling systems are generally more efficient than dry systems, since the wet
bulb temperature is open to the atmosphere and is 9ºF (5C) below the dry bulb temperature.
34
Belgium Brewery in Colorado takes advantage of outside cooling air during the winter months,
thereby reducing cooling energy loads (Farrell, 1998). The Miller brewing company reduced
seasonal system pressures on its system saving 1.1 kWh/barrel (1.0 kWh/hl) in its Milwaukee,
Wisconsin brewing operations (Miller Brewing Co. 2000).
Absorption cooling
Absorption cooling needs a low-cost heat source to drive the cooling. Therefore, absorption
cooling is most beneficial with installation of combined heat and power production (CHP). See
the example given below in combined heat and power.
Lighting
Several opportunities exist to reduce lighting energy consumption, which accounts for 7% of
electricity use in U.S. breweries. In a brewery in Romford (UK), faulty, dilapidated, obsolete or
oversized luminaries were replaced or upgraded by using slimmer and more efficient fluorescent
tubes, compact fluorescent lamps (instead of tungsten lamps), fluorescent fittings or high
pressure sodium lamps (instead of mercury discharge lamps), and electronic starters in all
fluorescent luminaries. With these measures, the overall installed load was reduced by 50%.
With the addition of lighting controls, electricity consumption for lighting was reduced by 66%.
Estimated annual savings amount to almost 650,000 kWh, with a payback period of 2.5 years
(CADDET, 1994). New Belgium Brewing Company in Colorado has also drastically reduced its
lighting load by designing for maximum use of natural light, including light pipes, and by
installing high efficiency fluorescent lighting along with motion sensors (Farrell, 1998). Miller‘s
Milwaukee, Wisconsin plant relamped the brewery with high efficiency lighting and controls,
reducing energy consumption by 0.6 kWh/barrel (Miller Brewing Co. 2000). Moosehead
35
breweries had a program to replace older T12 fluorescent lamps with higher efficiency T8 lamps
(Moosehead, 1999). Lom and Associates (1998) estimate less than a 2 year payback for the
replacement of standard fluorescent lighting with energy-efficient tubes. In addition to energy
savings, lighting retrofits can increase productivity and the attractiveness of the workplace.
The Grolsch brewery at Enschede (the Netherlands) uses an anaerobic pre-purifying system. The
system reduced annual purchased natural gas consumption by 730,000 Nm3 while increasing
electricity consumption by 150,000 kWh. The net savings was 20.4 billion Btu (21.5 TJ),
equivalent to 11.9 kBtu/barrel (10.2 kBtu/hl) (CADDET, 1997; NOVEM, 1993b; Anonymous,
1998). In their analysis of anaerobic systems, Heyse et al. (1996) estimate an energy production
range of 2.3-6.8 kBtu/barrel depending on the actual level of COD loading and wastewater
volume. Anheuser-Busch has installed bio-energy recovery systems at 8 of its 12 breweries in
the U.S. realizing energy savings of 10-15% on purchased fuel consumption and payback of less
than two years (Anheuser-Busch, 2000). When the reduced sludge production and disposal are
included, paybacks can drop to less than one year (Martin et al., 2000a). Additional benefits
include less capital requirements for the expansion of existing facilities and a significant
reduction in wastewater and solid waste. An in-house wastewater treatment system installed in
an Austrian brewery (with energy recovery) realized an electricity savings of 0.3 kWh/barrel (0.3
kWh/hl) and a thermal savings of 1.4 kBtu/barrel (1.2 MJ/hl) (EC, 1998). In a more recent
development, Ince et al. (2001) report on piloting the use of a crossflow ultrafiltration membrane
in anaerobic digester systems, also known as the anaerobic digestion ultrafiltration process
(ADUF). This system may have several advantages to traditional anaerobic systems including
the reduction in equipment (no sedimentation tank), minimizing required reactor volume and
improved control. However, only pilot data are currently available (Ince et al., 2001).
12
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) is a way of measuring the concentration of organic material in the discharge.
Normally breweries operate at a ratio of 1.5-1.7 COD/BOD.
36
Membrane filtration for waste water treatment
Companies that face increasing costs for wastewater disposal with high levels of biological
contaminants may find the use of membrane technologies economically attractive. Membrane
technologies focus on separating the water from the contaminants using semi-permeable
membranes and applied pressure differentials. Cross flow microfiltration membranes can be used
to remove particles from 0.05 to 2 microns in size (CERF, 1997). The average brewery effluent
is composed of 1500 to 2500 mg/l of COD and 1000 to 1500 mg/l of BOD5 (Heyse et al. 1996).
It has been demonstrated that the use of membranes can be cost-effective, reduce electricity
demand and occupy less space than traditional settling and filtration systems (Pearce, 1996;
CERF, 1997). System costs range from $900-$1,300 per m2 and the costs of filtration range from
0.5 to 10 cents per gallon of filtrate (NFPA, 1996). Problems with membrane applications
include biofouling of the membrane and the fragility of the membrane surface (CERF, 1997). We
currently estimate a payback of up to five years for this technology, although this depends on the
application (Martin et al., 2000b).
Savings can typically run from 2-5% or more for many industrial applications. The Tui Brewery
was able to reduce its energy costs by 12.5% at its Mangatainoka plant (New Zealand) through
the installation of automatic monitoring and control systems, and the payback was nearly
immediate (EECA, 2000). In the United Kingdom, the use of monitoring and targeting systems
has identified average savings of over $300,000 per brewery for 19 breweries with payback
periods ranging from 2-5 years (McDonald, 1996). In Lieshout (the Netherlands), the Bavaria
brewery installed an automatic refrigeration control system for its ammonia cooling system. The
system reduced annual electricity use by 450,000 kWh, or 0.15 kWh/barrel (0.13 kWh/hl)
(NOVEM, 1996). Similarly, the El Aguila Heineken brewery (Spain) installed a monitoring and
control system for their cooling installation, reducing electricity consumption by 0.67
kWh/barrel (0.57 kWh/hl) (NOVEM, 1991b). The payback period for this last project was about
2 years. The Carlsberg-Tetley brewery (UK) installed a refrigeration fault diagnostics system to
evaluate and advise on problems in the refrigeration system. Savings during the 9 month
monitoring period of the expert system were 524,000 kWh (30% of electricity use) with a
payback of 8 months (CADDET, 1996b). Labatt Breweries (Canada) implemented a monitoring
and tracking program beginning in 1992, which resulted in energy savings of 23% (CIPEC,
1998). In their study of a Bulgarian Brewery, Askounis and Psarras (1998) estimated a potential
savings of 11-13% through the installation of an information management and monitoring
system. Finally, Miller‘s Milwaukee, Wisconsin plant installed compressor controls and
achieved savings of 0.24 kWh/barrel (0.2 kWh/hl) (Miller Brewing Co. 2000).
37
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or cogeneration
For industries such as breweries that have process heat/steam or cooling and electricity
requirements, the use of combined heat and power systems can be an important energy efficiency
measure as well as reduce pollution. A thermal to electric ratio of 2:1 is typically a good
candidate for CHP (Batts, 1998). CHP is most likely to be economically viable when a unit can
run at full load for at least 5,000 hours annually (Sorrell, 2000). Reciprocating engines are two to
two and a half times cheaper than gas turbines, but cannot produce the same quantity of steam
and do not achieve the same efficiencies as combined cycle systems (Kidger, 2001).
Innovative gas turbine technologies can make CHP more attractive for sites with large variations
in heat demand. Steam-injected gas turbines (STIG, or Cheng cycle) can absorb excess steam,
e.g. due to seasonal reduced heating needs, to boost power production by injecting the steam in
the turbine. The size of typical STIGs starts around 5 MWe. STIGs are found in various
industries and applications, especially in Japan and Europe, as well as in the U.S. International
Power Technology (California) installed STIGs at different food industries in the U.S. (e.g.
Sunkist Ontario, California). Energy savings and payback period will depend on the local
circumstances (e.g. energy patterns, power sales conditions). Heineken installed a STIG-based
CHP unit at their brewery in ‗s Hertogenbosch (the Netherlands).
In the U.S., Coors Brewing Company has a large CHP system (40 MW). In 1995, Coors
outsourced its CHP operations to Trigen Energy Corporation. Coors has realized significant
energy savings and energy use per barrel has dropped by 20% since the start of the CHP project
(Trigen Energy Corporation, 2000). Labatt‘s brewery in Ontario (Canada) installed a high-
efficiency 5 MW Allison gas turbine-driven cogeneration system in 1993. Heineken (Holland)
has three Allison gas turbine units producing about 11 MW of power while recovering steam for
onsite use at their Zoeterwoude brewery (Brezonick, 1994; Kidger, 2001). Scotland‘s third
largest brewery, the Belhaven Brewery Group, significantly cut energy costs by installing a small
CHP unit (60 kW), resulting in a reduction in primary energy use of over 30% and a payback of
3.5 years (CHPA, 1998; Energy Advantage Co. 2000; Kidger, 2001).
38
boiler, and to preheat boiler feedwater with an economizer. The investment costs can be paid
back within four years (CADDET, 1994). The company achieved electricity savings of 10%
(CADDET, 1994). The Gas Research Institute in the U.S. joined in a combined partnership with
Tecogen that markets gas engine-driven chillers. These chiller systems have been installed in
several breweries in the U.S., and while the incremental investment cost is roughly double that of
electric chillers, the payback is 2-4 years in areas with high electricity rates (Glick, 2001).
39
8. Material Efficiency Opportunities
Improving the efficiency of raw material use or reduction of product losses results in the indirect
reduction of energy use (material efficiency). For example, the reduction of beer wastes can
reduce the need for processing an equivalent amount of raw materials, resulting in energy
savings in the brewhouse and other process steps. Materials use reduction also results in lowered
production costs due to fewer charges for solid and liquid waste disposal. The following section
identifies some of the main material reduction measures we have found in our literature survey.
40
pasteurizers, the use of bottle/rinse water has resulted in a decrease of 90% of water make up
to some pasteurizer systems (Bland, 1993).
Bottle rinse water can also be used as a source for virtually any cleaning-in-place rinse in the
brewery (Bland, 1993).
Throughout the plant, systems that are water-cooled using open cooling systems, can be
modified to cool with closed loop systems. These may include tunnel pasteurizers,
refrigeration compressors and condensers, air compressors, and carbon dioxide compressors
(UNEP, 1996; Bland, 1993). An Asian brewery (0.4 million barrel capacity) switched its
tunnel pasteurizer to a closed loop system. The investment for the equipment was $45,000
while the payback was approximately one year (UNEP, 1996). A study noted that increasing
cycles of concentration in the cooling tower and boiler systems results in reduced blowdown
(i.e. water and energy losses) (Bland, 1993). Another reuse opportunity is reclaiming the
cooling water for the deaerator pump seals (Bland, 1993).
Other opportunities include the installation of recirculation tanks with vacuum pump bottle
filler installations, optimizing bottle washing installations, cleaning in place plants (CIP), the
reduction of rinse water after CIP, and cascading of water for various uses (e.g. blowdown
for cooling towers). One cascading system saved a brewery over 400,000 gallons/day in total
combined effluent.
41
In the fermentation process, the beer is cooled and stored in storage tanks. Yeast can be
recovered from the rinse from the fermentation tanks, if pressed, reducing the pollution load.
Yeast can be recovered and reused or sold as animal feed. Any liquor containing yeast could be
filtered and yeast or beer recovered. A European brewery with a capacity of 0.8 million
barrel/year (1 Million hl/year) estimated the investment costs for installing a beer recovery
system from yeast. The system comprised two 40 barrel tanks for yeast after centrifugation, one
centrifuge at 17 barrels/hour (20 hl), two 40 barrel tanks for recovered beer, and piping and
pumps. The estimated cost was $500,000-$700,000 with a payback of 3-4 years based on a
recovery of 17,000 barrels (20,000 hl) annually (UNEP, 1996).
Another approach is to use membrane technology to recover beer and spent yeast, with more
than 50% of the yeast sediment recovered as beer (Bock and Oechsle, 1999). This technology
can be configured in a batch, semi-batch and continuous process. In the continuous and most
common process, the retentate and filtrate are continuously removed. The payback for this
system varies from 1-4 years depending on the size (Bock and Oechsle, 1999). The PallSep
vibrating membrane filter technology may be an improvement from the traditional cross-flow
membrane techniques with recovered yeast concentration in excess of 20% dry weight and beer
recovery of 3%. Operating costs for the PallSep system are estimated at $0.50/barrel ($0.43/hl)
(Snyder and Haughney, 1999).
The recovery of yeast also has the effect of reducing contaminant load. One estimate is that the
use of a press reduces COD load from the fermentation tanks by 75% and would also reduce
loads from the storage tanks (Watson, 1993).
42
Use of refillable bottles or PET bottles
The use of refillable glass bottles or of bottles made of polyethylene (PET) generates less waste
than their single use counterparts if the bottles are reused enough times (Saphire and Azimi,
1991). Today, only about 6% of beer and soft drinks are sold in refillable containers. Beer and
soft drink containers comprised about 8 million tons of waste in 1990 (about 4% of total solid
waste). According to David Saphire, today‘s refillable bottles of glass or PET are capable of 25
refills (Saphire and Azimi, 1991). Energy savings can be significant in terms of the reduced need
for glass manufacture or lower energy use for PET manufacture, as well as reduced air and water
pollution in this sector (Saphire and Azimi, 1991). A 1985 survey of New York State brewing
companies found that some companies that switched from one-way containers to refillable
bottles saved between $4 and $15 a barrel (between $3 and 13 a hl) (Saphire and Azimi, 1991).
The shipment of PET bottles can reduce transport costs by allowing for the packing of a larger
number of partially formed bottles per truck that can be fully formed using blow molding
equipment on site (New Belgium Brewing Co., 2001). These systems do require additional
investment in bottling equipment and for PET bottles there is concern about the diffusion of
oxygen into the bottle and therefore lead to a shorter shelf life. Miller Beer is selling some of its
beers in plastic containers, primarily for consumption at stadiums and arenas. Currently these
containers are slated only for one-time use. Some of the containers are now being collected,
flaked, recycled, and included as one of five layers in the manufacture of the new bottle (Phillip
Morris, 2000; Beer News, 2000; BEERWeek, 2000). Anheuser-Busch decided to cancel its plans
for bottling in plastic last year after test-marketing the products in selected areas (BEERWeek,
2000).
43
9. Future Technologies
We include description of technologies that may hold promise for the future but are still
currently in the research and development phase.
44
10. Summary & Conclusions
Breweries in the United States spend over $200 million on energy annually. Energy consumption
is equal to 3 – 8% of the production costs of beer, making energy efficiency improvement an
important way to reduce and control production costs. We found energy efficiency improvement
opportunities in the brewery industry, both for utilities and for various processes. Cross-cutting
utility energy efficiency measures that do not interfere directly with the brewing process show
immediate and significant potential for cost-effective energy savings. For process-specific
measures, interesting new technologies both reduce energy and improve product quality (either in
quality or yield). Specific primary energy savings are provided for each energy efficiency measure
based on case studies that described implementation of the measures as well as references to
technical literature. If available, typical payback periods are also listed. Tables 8 and 9 summarize
the energy efficiency opportunities, typical energy savings and payback periods.
We also provide information on other opportunities for materials efficiency and waste prevention,
as well as emerging technologies. Our findings suggest that given available technology, there are
still opportunities to reduce energy consumption cost-effectively in the brewing industry. Many of
the evaluated energy efficiency measures not only save energy, but they do so within a short
payback period, and accrue other benefits as well, such as reducing carbon dioxide emissions,
reducing waste, or saving water. Further research on the economics of the measures, as well as
their applicability to different brewing practices, is needed to assess implementation of selected
technologies at individual breweries.
45
Table 8. Specific primary energy savings and estimated paybacks for process specific
efficiency measures
Process specific
Primary Energy
Payback SavingsA
Measure (Years) (kBtu/barrel)
Mashing and Lauter Tun
Waste heat recovery n/a limited data
Use of compression filter 2 19
Wort boiling and cooling
Vapor condensers <2 to 5 <1 - 22
Thermal vapor recompression >2 16-18
Mechanical vapor recompression D 23
Steineker Merlin system 2 31
High gravity brewing <1 13-22
Low pressure wort boiling n/a 32-40
Wort stripping n/a 20-42
Wort cooling 3 17
Fermentation
Immobilized yeast fermenter n/a limited data
Heat recovery >2 limited data
New CO2 recovery systems >2 limited data
Processing
Microfiltration 2 to 4 limited data
Membranes (alcohol-free) 4 19
Heat recovery-pasteurization n/a 1
Flash pasteurization n/a 6-14
Packaging
Heat recovery washing 3 6
Cleaning improvements 3.4 23
A
Primary energy savings account for savings in fuel use, electricity use and electricity transmission and distribution
losses. We use a conversion factor of 3.08 from final to primary electricity use based on average U.S. power plant
heat rates. Energy savings are primarily taken from data from case studies in the literature. To convert kBtu/barrel to
kWh/hl use the conversion factor 0.25 kWh/hl/kBtu/barrel. To convert kBtu/barrel to GJ/hl, use the conversion
factor 0.0009 GJ/hl/kBtu/barrel
B
Based on data from two sources (EIA, 1997; Beer Institute, 2000), we assume an average U.S. brewery fuel usage
of 212 kBtu/barrel (53 kWh/hl), 90 to 100% of the fuel is used in the boilers, and an average boiler conversion
efficiency of 85%. We estimate a total plant electricity consumption of 122 kBtu/barrel (30.5 kWh/hl) (EIA, 1997).
C
We assume motors and systems using them make up 46% and process cooling make up 32% brewery electricity
use (EIA, 1997).
D
Results vary widely depending on plant configuration and size of the brewery
n/a Paybacks for this measure could not be estimated from available data
46
Table 9. Specific primary energy savings and estimated paybacks for efficiency measures
for utilities
Utilities
Primary Energy
Payback SavingsA
Measure (Years) (kBtu/barrel)
Boilers and Steam distributionB
Maintenance <1 4
Improved process control <1 3
Flue gas heat recovery >3 2
Blowdown steam recovery 2.7 2-3
Steam trap maintenance <1 3.4
Automatic steam trap monitoring <1 <1
Leak repair <1 6
Condensate return >1 19-21
Insulation of steam pipes 1 6-28
D
Process integration 47-84
C
Motors and Systems Using Motors
Variable speed drives 2 to 3 6-25
Downsizing 2 1-2
High efficiency 1 to 2 1-2
Refrigeration and coolingC
Better matching of cooling capacity and cooling loads 3.6 1-2
Improved operation of ammonia cooling system 5.5 <1 - 2
Improved operations and maintenance <1 4
System modifications and improved design 3 5-8
Insulation of cooling lines n/a Limited data
Other utilities
Lighting <2 to 3 2-6
Reduce space heating demand n/a 8
Anaerobic waste water treatment >2 5-9
Membrane filtration wastewater 5 limited data
Control & monitoring systems <1 - 5 <1 - 37
Combined heat and power 3.5 67-100
CHP with absorption cooling 4.5 79
Engine driven chiller systems 2 to 4 12
A Primary energy savings account for savings in fuel use, electricity use and electricity transmission and
distribution losses. We use a conversion factor of 3.08 from final to primary electricity use based on average U.S.
power plant heat rates. Energy savings are primarily taken from data from case studies in the literature. To convert
kBtu/barrel to kWh/hl use the conversion factor 0.25 kWh/hl/kBtu/barrel. To convert kBtu/barrel to GJ/hl, use the
conversion factor 0.0009 GJ/hl/kBtu/barrel
B Based on data from two sources (EIA, 1997; Beer Institute, 2000), we assume an average U.S. brewery fuel usage
of 212 kBtu/barrel (53 kWh/hl), 90 to 100% of the fuel is used in the boilers, and an average boiler conversion
efficiency of 85%. We estimate a total plant electricity consumption of 122 kBtu/barrel (30.5 kWh/hl) (EIA, 1997).
C We assume motors and systems using them make up 46% and process cooling make up 32% brewery electricity
use (EIA, 1997).
D Results vary widely depending on plant configuration and size of the brewery
n/a Paybacks for this measure could not be estimated from available data
47
11. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Climate Protection Partnerships Division of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency as part of its ENERGY STAR program, by EPA Contract
DW-89-93934401-1 through the U.S. Department of Energy Contract UNDER No. DE-AC03-
76SF00098.
The authors of this report would like to thank Mike Meyer, Gene Haberl, Don Schlechte, Hugh
Share, John Stein, Michael Kraemer, James E. Lambert and Charles Goodale of Anheuser-
Busch, Bob Brody and Hugo Patino of Coors, David Ryder and Becky Francisco of Miller, Barry
Elliot of Labatts, Simon Pesch and Stuart Glaun of Pyramid Breweries and Ryan Trail of the New
Belgium Brewing Company for sharing their expertise and information on brewing, comments
and review of the report. We thank Willem van Zanten (NOVEM, the Netherlands) for
information on energy efficiency opportunities in the beer industry. We also thank Paul Kidger,
Tom Lom of Lom and Associates, Charlie Bamforth from the University of California at Davis
and the people at Burnett and Rolfe for their comments and review. Despite their efforts, any
remaining errors are the responsibility of the authors.
48
12. References
Anonymous. (1998). Don‘t Let Your Profits Escape You. Brewer’s Guardian. July: 15-19, p. 39.
Anheuser-Busch. (2000). Environmental Health and Safety report, Bio-Energy Recovery System.
www.abehsreport.com/data/bioene.html.
Askounis, T. and J. Psarras. (1998). Information System for Monitoring and Targeting of Energy Consumption in
Breweries. Energy: the International Journal 23(5).
Batts, Y. (1998). Cogeneration; an Energy Saving Opportunity for Breweries MBAA Technical Quarterly. 34(4): pp.
197-202.
Beer News. (2000). Miller Rolls Out Plastic Bottles. March 9 th. http://realbeer.com/news/articles/news-000738.html
BEERWeek. (2000). Miller To Sell Beer In Plastic Bottles. BEERWeek 5(11), March 13-20th. http://beerweek.com/
archive/beerweek_200011.html#bw4
Bland, J. (1993). Water Reuse and Energy Conservation in the 90‘s Brewery…Practical Considerations, Advantages
and Limitations. MBAA Tech. Quart. 30: pp. 86-89.
Blanpain-Avet, P., N. Doubrovine, C. Lafforgue, M. Lalande. (1999). The Effect of Oscillatory Flow on Crossflow
Microfiltration of Beer in a Tubular Mineral Membrane System- Membrane Fouling Resistance Decreate and
Energetic Considerations. J. of Membrane Science. 152: pp. 151-174.
Bock, M. and D. Oechsle. (1999). Beer Recovery from Spent Yeast with Keraflux-Membranes, The Brewer July: pp.
340-345.
Brezonick, M. (1994). New-Generation Gas Turbine Helping Brewery Lighten Energy Costs. Diesel and Gas
Turbine Worldwide, October: pp. 18-19.
Burnett & Rolfe. (2001). Personal communication on new in-line kegging systems.
Caffal, C. (1995). Energy Management in Industry. Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated
Energy Technologies (CADDET). Analyses Series 17. Sittard, the Netherlands,
Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (CIPEC). (1998). Heads Up Newsletter with a Focus on the
Brewing Industry. II (22). http://buildings.nrcan.gc.ca/bulletins/cipec_II_22.htm.
Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET). (1992). Inverter
Speed Control Reduces Power Consumption of Electric Pumps at a Brewery. Case study JP-90.141.
49
Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET). (1993a). Process
Integration in a Brewery. Case study NL-93-516.
Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET). (1993b). Oil
Removers in Ammonia Cooling Systems. Case study NL-93-520.
Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET). (1993c). Proceedings
IEA Workshop on Process Integration, International Experiences and Future Opportunities, Sittard, the Netherlands.
Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET). (1994). Energy
Efficient Lighting in a Brewery. Case study UK-94-544.
Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET). (1996a). Rotary Heat
Exchanger for an Industrial Heat Reclaim Application. Case study AU-96-508.
Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET). (1996b).
Refrigeration Fault Diagnosis System. Case study UK-94-565.
Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET). (1997). Anaerobic
Water Purification in a Brewery in the Netherlands. Case study, NL-97-517.
Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET). (1998). Waste Heat
Recovery Using a Heat Wheel. Case study AU-98-501.
Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET). (1999a). Membrane
Filtration in the Production of Light and Near Beer. Case study NL-99-511
Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET). (1999b). An Energy
Efficient Ammonia Cooler at a Brewery. Case study NL-99-513.
Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET). (2000a). Saving
Energy with Cogeneration in a Brewery. CADDET Newsletter No. 3, November: 20-22.
Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET) (2000b). New
Energy-Efficient Bottle Cleaning Machine at a Brewery.
Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF). (1997). Clean Technologies in U.S. Industries: Focus on Food
Processing. Report prepared for the United States Asia Environmental Partnership (US-AEP),
www.usaep.org/reports/food.htm.
Combined Heat and Power Association (CHPA). (1998). Scottish Brewery Cuts Energy Bills with CHP. Press
release. www.chpa.co.uk.
Copper Development Association (CDA). (2001). High-Efficiency Copper-Wound Motors Mean Energy and Dollar
Savings. http://energy.copper.org/motorad.html.
Department of Commerce (DOC), U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1999). 1997-Economic Census Breweries,
Manufacturing Industry Series. EC97M-3121D.
50
Department of Commerce (DOC). (2000). Annual Survey of Manufacturers.
http://www.census.gov/econ/www/ma0300.html
Dymond, G. (1997). Pasteurization of Beer in Plate Heat Exchangers: Lower Costs and Higher Quality. Cerevisia
22(4): 37-48.
Benson, J. T., A. R. Coleman, J. E. B. Due, A. W. Henham, J. G. P. Twaalfhoven and W. Vinckx. (1997). Brewery
Utilities. European Brewery Convention Manual of Good Practice. Prepared for the EBC Technology and
Engineering Forum with assistance of the EU under the AIR Programme.
Edgell Communications. (2000). Americans are Drinking It Up. Beverage Industry 91(2).
Einstein, D., E. Worrell and M. Khrushch. (2001). Steam Systems in Industry: Energy Use and Energy Efficiency
Improvement Potentials. In: Proceedings of the 2001 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry,
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, DC.
Energy Center of Wisconsin (ECW). (1998). Impeller Trim Saves Heileman Brewery $19,000 a Year. (Case study).
Madison, WI.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy. (1994). In: Manufacturing Consumption of
Energy 1991. EIA, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Washington, DC.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy. (1997). In: Manufacturing Consumption of
Energy 1994. EIA, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Washington, DC.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy. (2001). Manufacturing Consumption of
Energy 1998. EIA, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Washington, DC.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA). (2000). You can‘t manage what you can‘t measure, says
DB‘s Tui Brewery. Energy-Wise Case Study-21. EECA, New Zealand.
European Commission (EC). (1998). Interdisciplinary Analysis of Successful Implementation of Energy Efficiency
in the Industrial, Commercial and Service sector. III: Documentation of Company Case Studies.
Farrell, J. (1998). New Belgium brewing Company Focuses on Efficiency. Reprint of article on Colorado
Sustainability Project Inc.‘s website at http://www.sustainablecolorado.org.
Fillaudeau, L. (1999). Cross-flow Microfiltration in the Brewing Industry—an Overview of Uses and Applications.
Brewer’s Guardian. July: pp. 22-30.
Ganapathy, V. (1994). Understand Steam Generator Performance. Chemical Engineering Progress 90 (12): pp. 42-
48.
Hackensellner, T. (2000). Efficient energy Use in the Brewhouse, The Huppman Group, Kitzingen, Germany.
51
Hackensellner, T. (2001). Dynamische Niederdruckkochung- Optimierte energie und Verfahrenstechnik. Brauwelt:
pp. 17-21.
Hein, M.A. (1998). The State of the Brewing Industry. Brewers Digest, January 1998: pp. 12-25.
Herrmann, H. (1998). Wort Boiling – Innovations with Impact on Product Quality and Plant Efficiency. MBAA
Tech. Quart. 35(2): pp. 84-89.
Heyse, K.U., N. Hiller, R. Beer. (1996). Environmental Protection in the Brewery. MBAA Tech. Quart. 33(4): pp.
246-254.
Hyde, A. (2000). Plate Pasteurization for Keg and Smallpack. The Brewer. June: pp. 248-250.
Ince, B. K., O. Ince, K. Anderson, S. Arayici. (2001). Assessment of Biogas Use as an Energy Source from
Anaerobic Digestion of Brewery Wastewater. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 126: pp. 239-251.
Industrial Assessment Center (IAC). (1999). Industrial Assessment Center Database. http://oipea-
www.rutgers.edu/site_docs/dbase.html.
Island Press, 1999. Trigen Energy Corporation and Coors case study. Cool Companies: How the Best Businesses
Boost Profits and Productivity by Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
http://www.islandpress.org/ecocompass/coolcomp/index.html
Jacob, F., R. Krieger, R. Wahl. (2001). Wuerze-Stripping—Auswirkungen auf die wurze—und Bierqualitat.
Brauwelt 5: pp. 166-170.
Johnston, B. 1995. 5 Ways to Greener Steam. The Chemical Engineer. 594 (August): pp. 24-27.
Jones, T. (1997). Steam Partnership: Improving Steam Efficiency through Marketplace Partnerships. In: American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C.
Klein-Carl, G. and R. Reichert. (1991). Energy Savings through Use of Low-Pressure Steam Re-compression in a
Brew Kettle with Interior Cooker. MBAA Tech. Quart. 28: pp. 142-144.
Kidger, P. (2001). Personal communication on CHP and other brewery efficiency measures.
Kumana, J. (2000b). Pinch Analysis – What, When, Why, How. Additional publications available by contacting
jkumana@aol.com
Linnhoff, B., D.W. Townsend, D. Boland, G.F. Hewitt, B.E.A. Thomas, A.R. Guy, R.H. Marsland (1992). A User
Guide on Process Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy (1992 edition), Institution of Chemical Engineers,
Rugby, UK.
Linnhoff, B. (1993). Pinch Analysis: A State-of-the-Art Overview. Chemical Engineering 71 (AS): pp.503-522.
Lom and Associates. (1998). In: Energy Guide. Energy Efficiency Opportunities in the Canadian Brewing Industry.
Brewers Association of Canada, Ontario, Canada.
52
Maidment, G.G. and G. Prosser (2000). The Use of CHP and Absorption Cooling in Cold Storage. Applied Thermal
Engineering 20: pp. 1059-1073.
Martin, N, N. Anglani, D. Einstein, M. Khrushch, E. Worrell, and L.K. Price. (2000a). Opportunities to Improve
Energy Efficiency and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S. Pulp and Paper Industry. LBNL-46141.
Martin, N.; E. Worrell, M. Ruth, L. Price, R. N. Elliot, A. M. Shipley, J. Thorne. (2000b). Emerging Energy-
Efficient Industrial Technologies. LBNL-46990.
Masschelein, C.A. and M. Andries. (1996). The Meura-Delta Immobilized Yeast Fermenter for the Continuous
Production of Beer,‖ Cerevisia 21(4): pp. 28-31.
McDonald, W. (1996). Energy Monitoring and Targeting in the UK Brewing Industry. MBAA Tech. Quart. 33(3):
pp. 136-148.
Mignon, D and J. Hermia. (1995). Retrofitting and New Design of the Brewhouses of an Industrial Brewery.
Monatsschrift Fur Brauwissenschaft 48(5-6): pp. 178-183.
Moné, C.D., D. S. Chau and P. E. Phelan. (2001). Economic Feasibility of Combined Heat and Power and
Absorption Refrigeration with Commercially Available Gas Turbines. Energy Conversion and Management 42(13):
pp. 1559-73.
Moosehead Breweries Ltd. (1999). An Action Plan for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Muller, W.K. (1996). High Gravity Brewing. MBAA Tech. Quart. 33(1): pp. 16-19.
National Food Processor‘s Association (NFPA). (1996). Statement of Need Regarding the Reduction of Food
Processing Waste Stream Volume Through Membrane Filtration. http://www.fpc.unl.edu/fmc/need-06.htm.
Nedovic, V., I. Leskosek-Cukalovic, G. Vunjak-Novakovic. (1999). Immobilized Cell Technology (ICT) in Beer
Fermentation – a Possibility for Environmentally Sustainable and Cost-Effective Process. http://www.rcub.bg.ac.yu.
Netherlands Organization for Energy and the Environment (NOVEM). (1991a). Hergebruik van Warmte bij een
Bierbrouwerij. Project factsheet.
Netherlands Organization for Energy and the Environment (NOVEM). (1991b). Controle en sturing van een
Koelinstallatie Bij een Bierbrouwerij. Project factsheet.
Netherlands Organization for Energy and the Environment (NOVEM). (1993a). Procesintegratie in een Brouwerij.
Project factsheet.
Netherlands Organization for Energy and the Environment (NOVEM). (1993b). Anaerobe/aerobe
Afvalwaterzuivering bij een Bierbrouwerij. Project factsheet.
Netherlands Organization for Energy and the Environment (NOVEM). (1993c). Ammoniakwassers in NH3-
koelinstallatie van een Bierbrouwerij. Project factsheet.
53
Netherlands Organization for Energy and the Environment (NOVEM). (1995). Volledig Geintergreerde
Geautomatiseerde Olievrije NH3-koelinstalatie. Project factsheet.
Netherlands Organization for Energy and the Environment (NOVEM). (1996). Integratie en Monitoring Ammoniak
Koelinstallaties in de Voedingmiddelen –en Drankenindustrie. Project factsheet.
Netherlands Organization for Energy and the Environment (NOVEM). (1997). Membraanfilterinstallatie Bij de
Bereiding van Alcoholvrij Bier. Project factsheet.
Netherlands Organization for Energy and the Environment (NOVEM). (1999a). Terugdringing Spoelwater Bij
Maischfilter. Project factsheet.
Netherlands Organization for Energy and the Environment (NOVEM). (1999b). Energie en Waterbesparing Door
een Verbetering in de Koelwaterhuishouding. Project factsheet.
New Belgium Brewing Company. (2001). Personal communication with energy engineer.
Nyboer, J. and A. Laurin. (2001). Energy Intensity Indicators for Canadian Industry 1990-1999. Canadian Industry
Energy End-Use Database and Analysis Center: Simon Fraser University.
Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT), U.S. Department of Energy. (1998). Steam Challenge Information, Best
Practices Program.
O‘Rourke, T. (1999a). Wort Boiling (part 2). Brewer’s Guardian. September: pp. 38-41.
O‘Shaugbnessy, C. and M. McKechnie. (2000). The Future of Separations Technology. The Brewer March.
http://www.breworld.com/the_brewer/9603/br1.html.
Osmonics. (1992). Methods of Water Purification. In: The Pure Water Handbook. www.osmonics.com
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), 2000. Membrane Technology in Industrial Processes.
http://www.pge.com/003_save_energy/003b_bus/pdf/membrane_tech.pdf
Pearce, G. (1996). Quality and Cost Control in Breweries Using Membranes. Filtration & separation. October.
Real Beer Website. (2000). Beer Expedition Informational page. http://www.beerexpedition.com/ index.html
Saphire, D. and S. Azimi. (1991). Case Reopened: Reassessing Refillable Bottles, Rethinking Resources: New Ideas
for Community Waste Prevention. www.informinc.org/sp3-exec.html#refill.
Seldeslachts, D., E. Van den Eynde, L. Degelin. (1999). Wort Stripping. Paper delivered at the 1997 EBC Congress.
Shenoy, U. (1994). Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
Singleton, M. (2000). Measuring the Potential of GHG Emissions Reductions in the Food and Beverage Processing
Sector in Ontario. Project 50156, Final Report for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
Jacques Whitford, Environment Ltd: Ontario.
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/policy/Climate%20Change/Index.html
54
Smith, R. (1995). Chemical Process Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Snyder, J. and H. Haughney. (1999). Use of a Vibrating Membrane Filter for the Recovery of Beer from Surplus
Yeast. MBAA Technical Quarterly 36(2): pp. 191-193.
Sorrell, S. (2000). Barriers to Energy Efficiency in the UK Brewing Sector. Science and Technology Policy
Research (SPRU), University of Sussex.
Stein, W. (1993). Dealcoholization of Beer. MBAA Tech. Quart. 30: pp. 54-57.
Steineker, 2001. Energy Technology Acceptance of the New Wort Boiling System Merlin.
http://www.steinecker.com/
Stewart, G. G. and I. Russell. (1998). An Introduction to Brewing Science and Technology, Series III Brewer‘s
Yeast, The Institute of Brewing, London.
Stewart, G. (1999). High Gravity Brewing. Brewer’s Guardian. September: pp. 31-37.
Stewart, G. (2000). A brewers delight. Chemistry and Industry. 6 (November): pp. 706-709.
Stippler, K. and J. Felgentraeger. (1999). Vergleich Energiesparender Wurzekochsysteme mit dem Merlin-System.
Brauwelt 35: pp. 1556-1558.
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). (1996). Environmental Management in the Brewing Industry,
Technical Report No. 33. ISBN: 92-807-1523-2.
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). (2001). Clean Production Fact Sheet—Breweries and Wine
Manufacturers. UNEP Working Group on Cleaner Production in the Food Industries.
http://www.geosp.uq.edu.au/emc/CP
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (1995). Food Processing Industry: Output of
Seminar on Energy Conservation in the Food Processing Industry. Sponsored by UNIDO and the Ministry of
International Trade and Industry.
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (2000). Sectoral Profile of Brewing Industry.
http://www.unido.org/ssites/env/sectors/sectors101.html.
Vollhals, B. (1994). Energy Saving in the Brewhouse. MBAA Tech. Quart. 31: pp. 1-4.
Watson, C. (1993). Wastewater Minimization and Effluent Disposal at a Brewery. MBAA Tech. Quart. 30: pp. 86-
89.
Weinzierl, M., H. Miedaner, K. Stippler, K. Wasmuht, J. Englmann. (2000). Merlin – A New Wort Boiling System.
MBAA Tech. Quart. 37(3): pp. 383-391.
Xenergy, Inc. (1998). In: United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities Assessment. U.S.
Department of Energy‘s Office of Industrial Technology and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Washington, DC/Oak
Ridge, TN.
55
Appendix I. Locations and capacity of large breweries
Company Location (City) Location Year began Capacity
(State) operation (million barrel)
Anheuser-Busch Fairfield CA 1976 3.8
Anheuser-Busch Los Angeles CA 1954 12.0
Anheuser-Busch Ft. Collins CO 1988 6.1
Anheuser-Busch Houston TX 1966 10.0
Anheuser-Busch St. Louis MO 1879 14.4
Anheuser-Busch Columbus OH 1968 7.1
Anheuser-Busch Merrimack NH 1970 3.0
Anheuser-Busch Baldensville NY 1983 7.7
Anheuser-Busch Newark NJ 1951 10.0
Anheuser-Busch Williamsburg VA 1972 10.0
Anheuser-Busch Cartersville GA 1993 6.6
Anheuser-Busch Jacksonville FL 1969 7.9
Miller Albany GA 1980 10.3
Miller Eden NC 1977 9.7
Miller Ft. Worth TX 1969 8.8
Miller Orinda (Irwindale) CA 1980 6.8
Miller Milwaukee WI 1855 9.2
Miller Trenton OH 1991 10.5
Miller Tumwater WA 1896 3.5
Coors Golden CO 1873 20.0
Coors Memphis TN 1990 5.0
Latrobe Brewing/Labatt Latrobe PA 1933 1.5
Minnesota Brewing Co. St. Paul MI 2.0
Boston Beer Co. Boston MA 1984 1.2
Highfalls Brewing Rochester NY 1933 3.0
Pittsburgh Brewing Pittsburgh PA 1861 1.0
Yuengling Tampa FL 1831 0.6
Pabst (closed 2001) Lehigh Valley PA 1971 3.5
Rainer Brewing (closed) Seattle WA 1916 7.9
Total
Sources: http://www.beerexpedition.com/northamerica.shtml, company telephone correspondence with Anheuser
Busch, Miller, Coors, Pittsburgh Brewing and Boston Beer Company
56
Appendix II. Employee tasks for energy efficiency
One of the key steps to a successful energy management program is the involvement of
all personnel. Staff may be trained in both skills and the general approach to energy
efficiency in daily practices. Personnel at all levels should be aware of energy use and
objectives for efficiency. By passing information to everyone, each employee may be
able to save energy every day. In addition, performance results should be regularly
evaluated and communicated to all personnel, recognizing high performers. Examples of
some simple tasks employees can do include the following (Caffal, 1995):
Switch off motors, fans and machines when they are not being used, especially at
the end of the working day or shift, and during breaks, when it does not affect
production, quality or safety. Similarly, turn on equipment no earlier than needed
to reach the correct settings (temperature, pressure) at the start time.
Switch off unnecessary lights and rely on daylighting whenever possible.
Use weekend and night setbacks on HVAC in offices or conditioned buildings.
Report leaks of water (both process water and dripping taps), steam and
compressed air and ensure they are repaired quickly. The best time to check for
leaks is a quiet time like the weekend.
Look for unoccupied, heated or cooled areas, and switch off heating or cooling.
Check that heating controls are not set too high or cooling controls are not set too
low. In this situation, windows and doors are often left open to lower
temperatures instead of lowering the heating.
Check to make sure the pressure and temperature of equipment is not set too high.
Prevent drafts from badly fitting seals, windows and doors, and hence, leakage of
cool or warm air.
Carry out regular maintenance of energy-consuming equipment.
Ensure that the insulation on process heating equipment is effective.
57
Appendix III: Energy management system assessment for best practices in energy efficiency
ORGANIZATION SYSTEMS MONITORING TECHNOLOGY O&M
Monitoring & Utilities Reviews Plans Operation & Maintenance
Accountability Organization Targeting Management
0 No awareness of No energy manager or Energy efficiency of No utilities No specific No energy No written procedures for
responsibility for "energy champion.‖ processes on site not consumption reviews held. improvement practices affecting energy
energy usage. Energy determined. Few monitoring. plans published. efficiency.
not specifically process parameters
discussed in meetings. monitored regularly.
1 Operations staff aware Energy manager is Energy efficiency of Utilities (like power Energy only Energy No procedures available to
of the energy combined with other site determined and fuel reviewed as part improvement operating staff.
efficiency performance tasks and roles such monthly or yearly. consumption) of other type plans published
objective of the site. that less than 10% of Site annual energy monitored on reviews but based on an
one person‘s time is efficiency target set. overall site basis. arbitrary
given to specific Some significant assessment of
energy activities. process parameters opportunities.
are monitored.
2 Energy efficiency Energy manager Weekly trend Weekly monitoring Infrequent energy Energy Procedures available to
performance indicators appointed giving monitoring of of steam/power review. performance operators but not recently
are produced and greater than 10% of energy efficiency of balance. plan published reviewed.
available to operations time to task. processes and of based on
staff. Periodic energy Occasional training site, monitored estimate of
campaigns. in energy related against targets. opportunities.
Intermittent energy issues. Process parameters
review meetings. monitored against
target.
3 Energy efficiency Energy manager in Daily trend Daily monitoring of Regular plant/site A five-year Procedures available to
performance parameter place greater than monitoring of steam/power. Steam energy reviews energy operators and reviewed in
determined for all 30% of time given to energy efficiency of & fuel balances carried out. improvement the last three years.
energy consuming task. Adhoc training processes and of adjusted daily. plan is published
areas. Operations staff arranged. Energy site, monitored based on
advised of performance reported against target. identified
performance. All to management. Process parameters opportunities
employees aware of monitored against from energy
energy policy. targets. review.
Performance review
meetings held
once/month.
58
ORGANIZATION SYSTEMS MONITORING TECHNOLOGY O&M
Monitoring & Utilities Reviews Plans Operation & Maintenance
Accountability Organization Targeting Management
4 Energy efficiency An energy manager Same as 3, with Real time Site wide energy A ten year Procedures are reviewed
performance is in place giving additional monitoring of fuel, studies carried energy regularly and updated to
parameter included in greater than 50% participation in steam and out at least every improvement incorporate the best
personal performance time to task. Energy energy efficiency steam/power five years with plan based on practices. Used regularly by
appraisals. All staff training to take place target setting. balance. Optimum follow up actions review is operators and supervisors.
involved in site regularly. Energy Process parameters balances progressed to published and
energy targets and performance reported trended. maintained. completion integrated into
improvement plans. to management and the Business
Regular weekly actions followed up. Plan.
meeting to review
performance.
59
Appendix IV. Support programs for industrial energy efficiency improvement
This appendix provides a list of energy efficiency supports available to industry. A brief description
of the program or tool is given, as well as information on its target audience and the URL for the
program. Included are federal and state programs. Use the URL to obtain more information from
each of these sources. An attempt was made to provide as complete a list as possible; however,
information in this listing may change with the passage of time.
MotorMaster+
Description: Energy-efficient motor selection and management tool, including a catalog of
over 20,000 AC motors. It contains motor inventory management tools, maintenance log tracking,
efficiency analysis, savings evaluation, energy accounting and environmental reporting
capabilities.
Target Group: Any industry
Format: Downloadable Software (can also be ordered on CD)
Contact: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technologies
URL: http://mm3.energy.wsu.edu/mmplus/default.stm
60
Target Group: Any industry operating a compressed air system
Format: Downloadable software
Contact: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technologies
URL: http://www.compressedairchallenge.org/
61
Assessment and Technical Assistance
Plant-Wide Audits
Description: An industry-defined team conducts an on-site analysis of total energy use and
identifies opportunities to save energy in operations and in motor, steam,
compressed air and process heating systems. The program covers 50% of the audit
costs.
Target Group: Large plants
Format: Solicitation (put out regularly by DOE)
Contact: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technologies
URL: http://www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/plant_wide_assessments.shtml
62
ENERGY STAR – Selection and Procurement of Energy-Efficient Products for Business
Description: ENERGY STAR identifies and labels energy-efficient office equipment. Look for
products that have earned the ENERGY STAR. They meet strict energy efficiency
guidelines set by the EPA. Office equipment included such items as computers,
copiers, faxes, monitors, multifunction devices, printers, scanners, transformers
and water coolers.
Target Group: Any user of labeled equipment.
Format: Website
Contact: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
URL: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=business.bus_index
Training
ENERGY STAR
Description: As part of ENERGY STAR‘s work to promote superior energy management
systems, energy managers for the companies that participate in ENERGY STAR
are offered the opportunity to network with other energy managers in the
partnership. The networking meetings are held monthly and focus on a specific
strategic energy management topic to train and strengthen energy managers in the
development and implementation of corporate energy management programs.
Target Group: Corporate and plant energy managers
Format: Web-based teleconference
Contact: Climate Protection Partnerships Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
URL: http://www.energystar.gov/
63
Financial Assistance
Below we summarize the major federal programs that provide assistance for energy efficiency investments.
Many states also offer funds or tax benefits to assist with energy efficiency projects (see below for State
Programs).
64
search for project funding. Below we summarize selected programs earmarked specifically for support of energy
efficiency activities.
65
Format: Solicitation
Contact: NYSERDA, (866) NYSERDA
URL: http://www.nyserda.org/industry/industrialprograms.html
66